Thread by @TERPodcast

Episode #148 published last night, in which I said that news analysis was challenging because things were changing rapidly.

This morning, the PM released a video statement 'pleading' with teachers directly to reopen schools.

This thread attempts some analysis of this statement:

First, summary:

The video begins with praise for 'great heroes' in the health profession, including cleaners in hospitals.

He then pivots to thank teachers for their work and acknowledges great changes to education systems.

He talks about disadvantaged families and vulnerable students who may not be able to get an education at home. He says: 'it's a sad reality, but we know it's true, and we have to face it'.

He then says these students 'need you, for our schools to remain open'

'they need you, our great teachers, more than ever.'

Then, around 2:30 of a 5:11 video, he makes an economic argument, saying we cannot have a situation where parents are forced to choose between putting food on the table, through their employment, and their kids's education'

He says "we know teachers don't want to force those choices onto parents either, because if we do, thousands of jobs would be lost."

There is then an edit in the video, splicing two takes together, and after the cut he begins talking about 'expert medical advice'.

He says the medical advice has not changed when it comes to the safety of children going to school, and that the risk remains very low.

'The issue in our schools relates, principally, to the safety of teachers.' He acknowledges not all teachers can be at school (eg health risks)

He says teachers will be doing their best, and 'we need you more than ever. Thank you for everything you're doing'.

'We will lose many things, but one of the things teachers & parents are united on is that we don't want one of those things to be the loss of a child's education'

He ends by saying 'lets keep working together to ensure we can be there for our kids. To keep them healthy, to keep them safe, but to keep them learning.'

End summary. On to analysis:

First, there is nothing new being announced in this video. No policy, no funding, no timelines for future change.

Secondly, the PM's message seems to ignore the fact that public schools around Australia remain open for students to attend.

You could be forgiven for interpreting this video as the PM pleading for the current situation to continue as it is - but it is unlikely that the media advisers to the office of the PM would put such a message forward. So it appears to be part of a broader political narrative.

From that perspective, the timing of this video is important.

Victorian schools started Term 2 this week, with families instructed to keep children home if they can, and teachers working to deliver online curriculum. Families can send students to school if they need to.

The conflict between the Federal LNP govt. and the Victorian Labor govt. has been at the fore of the national COVID-19 response. Victoria, where term 1 ended earlier, closed schools early by bringing forward and extending schools holidays while strategies were developed

This Victorian action happened at a time when the PM was talking about keeping schools open. Though even the LNP Pemiere of NSW was, at the time, talking about implementing stricter measures that Fed govt. requirements - the tension between state and feds was evident.

That the PM's message is framed as a plea to teachers without acknowledging the actual situation carries the implied message that the current state of things is not adequate.

The timing of this message makes Victoria look like a key target.

To break down the language of the message. The opening use of phrases like 'great heroes' to describe health workers taps into the broader wartime metaphors and rhetoric that have been used - and heavily criticised - around the world.

theconversation.com/war-metaphors-…

Some Federal government MPs have previously compared stimulus measures to Dunkirk - a comparison also used in the UK.

The key criticism of of this comparison is the implication that in a wartime situation there is an unavoidable loss of life. This is another key area of dispute.

The relationship between 'going early' and limiting social interactions to slow the spread of the virus and therefore saving lives underpins criticism of govts. who delayed such actions, and comparisons of death tolls in jurisdictions with different responses can be easily found

So the wartime rhetoric of heroes, and the implication of unavoidable loss of life, has the appearance of blame shifting by governments criticised for acting too slowly to enact strict isolation.

The broader connotation of this is also concerning:

Only a month ago, the PM was talking about keeping schools open as part of a 'herd immunity' strategy. This has also caused concern because that implies 'letting people die'. See this article for more detail.

sbs.com.au/news/why-a-her…

The combination of 'herd immunity' with wartime rhetoric implies that the government is willing to make decisions that result in lives being lost that could otherwise have been saved, but is attempting to position those who die as 'heroes' whose deaths were unavoidable.

What the PM says about schools directly similarly has connotations.

When he says teachers don't want parents to be making the choice between work and their child's education his failure to acknowledge that schools are open to students invites further scrutiny.

Firstly, by ignoring that students can still attend school, he frames that point to suggest that teachers have the primary decision making authority to influence that struggle. He does not acknowledge his, or his govt's role in creating that struggle.

Economic stimulus in response to the pandemic varies greatly around the world. Examples implemented elsewhere that our government could have chosen include a universal basic income paid to individuals or one-off stimulus payments paid to individuals.

The PM made it clear early on that they would not be implementing those models, and instead delivered funding stimulus primarily through businesses and employers, with caveats that means a significant number of employees lost jobs and missed out on support.

In fact, the desire to avoid a direct-to-individuals payment scheme appeared to be a specific goal of the govt. after a decade spent criticising Labor for such a response to the GFC

thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/…

The point is that is any Australian family who finds themselves in a position of having to choose between their employment and their child's education is in that situation, in no small part, because of the specific approach to stimulus and economic support that the PM has chosen.

Like with the wartime rhetoric, he appears to be shifting responsibility to a group in society with less power than himself (teachers) for any difficulty faced by Australians, despite the fact those difficulties could have been directly alleviated by the PM/govt.

Also, I want to point out what an odd notion it is that families would have to choose between employment and education. First, as schools are open to students, no parent has to make that choice. Second, that choice would only arise if a child can't go to school...

... because of other concerns, particularity health risks, meaning the status of schools is not a factor in that decision.

As stated earlier, the main purpose of this comment appears to be to frame teachers as holding some responsibility for difficulties faced by Australians.

And, note, he talks about teachers individually, personally - not education systems, not state governments making these decisions, not regional administrators or even school principals, but teachers themselves. He implies this is a choice of individual teachers.

The PMs earlier point in the video about the 'sad reality' that some students won't get an education at home also seems to disavow his government's decisions impacting these issues and shift the focus of responsibility to teachers.

He is correct that some students' educations are heavily impacted by their home circumstances. This is, and has been true long before the pandemic. This is the issue of equity in education, and an issue the PM has previously walked away from in education.

The Gonski / Fair Funding campaigns, which evolved from earlier schools funding campaigns, were primarily about the issue of equity. Some students need more support and funding to ensure they can overcome personal disadvantage and engage more effectively in education.

This is not an attempt to guarantee equality of outcomes, but to try and ensure all students at least have equal access to the opportunities of a school education. Those students' whose home lives were negatively affecting their education were there before the pandemic...

... and they will be there afterwards. However the PM and his government have walked away from the needs-based funding models attempting to address these issues of inequity in our education system. So for him to now invoke equity as a concern for schools without...

... any announcement of systemic support once again makes this seem intended to frame someone other than himself and his govt as responsible for the issues of inequity.

Again, this video contained no new announcements. No funding, no support, no timelines for future change

Finally, I want to break down his statement that 'we will lose many things' but don't want education to be one of them.

In the context of the pandemic and the 'heroes' rhetoric of the video opening the most immediate interpretation of 'things' is 'lives'.

That is, of course, only because the PM did not acknowledge that schools are effectively already doing what he describes, making his plea to teachers even more confusing.

This has turned into a somewhat epic thread - there is more that could be unpacked, but I believe this addresses the key points of the message.

Please feel free to add your own thoughts.

More to read:

abc.net.au/news/2020-04-1…

Update:

https://twitter.com/DougalBeatty/status/1250226721695002627?s=20